Council bans 'brainstorming' and replaces the term with 'thought showers'... for fear of offending epileptics.... in genteel Tunbridge Wells, the expression brainstorming has been banned. And in future, meetings to generate new ideas will be referred to as 'thought showers'.

Apparently is no consideration is given to the feelings of incontinent intellectuals.and...

An 81-year-old pensioner was ordered to remove his flat cap in a bar - because it was deemed a security risk.Harvey Talbot was having a quiet afternoon pint in his regular pub when he was told he had to take off the cap.Staff said the bemused former driver, who suffers from mobility problems, could use it to hide his face if he committed a crime.And when the pensioner complained, he was told the Yates' bar was only following police advice.

I hope it counts:I've bought desktop lamp lately and "Safety usage" instruction says that I should not remove a bulb without help from "qualified electrician". Now I wonder is there any kind of certificate for "Bulbs exchanging procedure" It is written on the same paper that I can't neither put bulb into my mouths nor sink the whole thing in water. This sentence makes it more serious imho.

Being honest: I've always thought that special precautions should be always made for kids and mentally ill people. Seeing the growth of "safety instructions" for simple things makes me worry that the world is getting stupider day after day.

Woman, 52, sues Victoria's Secret, claims injury from defective thongJUNE 17--As she was attempting to put on a Victoria's Secret thong, a Los Angeles woman claims that a decorative metallic piece flew off the garment and struck her in the eye, causing injuries and a new product liability lawsuit against the underwear giant. Macrida Patterson, 52, alleges that she was hurt last May by a defective "low-rise v-string" from the Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" line, according to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court. A copy of her June 9 complaint, which does not specify monetary damages, can be found below. Patterson's lawyer, Jason Buccat, told TSG that a "design problem" caused the decorative piece to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea. He added that the eye injury, which caused Patterson to miss a few days of work, will be "affecting her the rest of her life." Patterson is a traffic officer with L.A.'s Department of Transportation. Prior to the lawsuit's filing, Victoria's Secret officials asked to examine the garment and the decorative piece, but that request was rejected by Patterson's counsel. For those unfamiliar with "v-strings," the undergarment is the Victoria's Secret variant on the "g-string," which has long been favored in the battle against visible panty lines.~snip~

If you're too big to wear a, oh say.......a size 3 thong, and put it on anyway then how is any injury anyone elses fault?I mean damn, you could put someones eye out or something.

Five years ago a retired farmer drove his Chevy pickup out to the farm to get some straw for his garden. He left the truck running as he loaded five bales of straw. He got back into the cab, had a heart attack and died. The truck sat there idling for several hours before the catalytic converter caught the grass on fire. The truck burned up as did the deceased. His family sued GM for fifty million dollars because their truck cremated their deceased father--and won [I don't know if an appeal managed to reduce the amount.] even though the owner's manual specifically warned against leaving the vehicle running unattended and parking on dead grass.GM then raises the truck price enough to more than cover the lawsuit amount and anyone buying a pickup helps pay this family for their ridiculous lawsuit. Juries will give huge amounts to almost anyone who sues a big company, especially one they dislike. Are you aware that about 80% of the cost of a ladder is for liability insurance for the manufacturer? Everyone who does something stupid on a ladder sues and usually wins. I'm not in favor of caps on torts and I'm neither a lawyer nor a manufacturer but I sure wish there was a way to inject some common sense into juries.

I'm with you, oldfart! When I were a lad the idea of bringing an action against someone else for a piece of self-inflicted harm would have been risible.

I blame

Johnny Cash

JOHNNY CASH LYRICS

"A Boy Named Sue"

My daddy left home when I was threeAnd he didn't leave much to ma and meJust this old guitar and an empty bottle of booze.Now, I don't blame him cause he run and hidBut the meanest thing that he ever didWas before he left, he went and named me "Sue."

You could of course all just leave those foolish countries... but then again, I am afraid foolishness in general is spreading! Not only "more people = more fools", but also "bigger cities and more TV channels = more foolishness per fool".

On the other hand, if she doesn't understand why vista says that (which is what leads her to accept its advice), she probably shouldn't be installing the software to begin with. Thus, that specific warning in that specific situation actually makes sense. (on any other situation, it's just plain anoying )

Some English local councils have decided that people who put salt on their fish and chips need to be protected from themselves.

These councils carried out careful (and tax-payer-funded) research to discover that people were using salt shakers with 17 (gasp!) holes in the top. They concluded that fewer holes in the shakers would mean less salt and, in a tour de force of mathematical skill, concluded that only 5 holes would reduce the flow of salt 'by more than 60%'. So, these councils ordered batches of five-hole shakers and distributed them free to local food outlets, again at tax-payers' expense.

Presumably, if this doesn't appease the local bureaucrats they'll order yet more replacement salt shakers with no holes at all.

Fact is, McDonalds was serving coffee hot enough to give third degree burns. Though people argue that is the ideal temp for coffee, McDonalds at the time was the only one selling it at drive-thru windows in cups w/caps designed - and advertised - for "drinking on the go".

As for Stella, she was not driving and did not attempt to open or drink the coffee while the car was moving. Her grandson was driving and had pulled over to allow her to add cream & sugar to the coffee. Also, McDonalds had at the time been sued over 700 times for scalds from their coffee. And Stella only asked for $20,000 from McDonalds - her medical expenses for skin grafts were about $12,000 and ongoing at the time of the suit. When McDonalds refused to settle - actually refused to settle for more than $600 - she got a lawyer and sued. Initially for $300,000. The court-appointed mediator recommended that McDonalds should pay $225,000. They refused. The jury claimed later that they had followed the closing argument of Stella's attorney and ordered a punitive damage amount equal to 2 days of the revenue McDonalds claimed it was making from coffee sales. They also declared Stella liable for 20% of the accident, and McDonalds 80%. They were making a statement against McDonalds rather than in support of Stella.